M/S. Kiran Distributors Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

W.A. NOS. 2404, 2407, 2427 AND 2433 OF 2021
AND
C.M.P. NOS. 15433, 15439, 15380, 15540, 15541, 15572 AND 15574
OF 2021

¶6

M/s. Kiran Distributors,
Represented by its Proprietor,
No.63, Perumal Koil Garden II Lane,
Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.

¶7

 ... Appellant is all WAs
Vs.

¶8

1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Peddunnaickenpet Assessment Circle,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶9

2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT),
Enforcement (North),
PAPJM Building,
Chennai – 600 006.

¶10

... Respondents in all WAs

¶11

Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying
to allow the above Writ Appeals by setting aside the common
order dated 15.06.2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 18024, 18022, 18025
and 18023 of 2016 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ
Petitions.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.Nos. 18024, 18022, 18025 and 18023 of 2016:-

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a writ of certiorari, to call for the
impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in TIN :
33550242192/2013-2014, TIN : 33550242192/2011-2012, TIN :
33550242192/2014-2015, TIN : 33550242192/2012-2013 dated
31.3.2016 and quash the same as the impugned order has been
passed totally contrary to provisions of the TNVAT Act against
the principles of natural justice and also passed without
considering the detailed objections dated 23.12.2015 and
9.3.2016 in W.P.Nos. 18024, 18022, 18025 and 18023 of 2016,
respectively.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

For Appellant: Mr.P.Rajkumar
(in all WAs)
For Respondents: Mr.M.Venkateswaran
(in all WAs) Government Counsel

¶16

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)

¶18

These appeals have been filed by the writ petitioner
challenging the common order passed in W.P. Nos. 18024, 18022,
18025 and 18023 of 2016 dated 15.06.2021.

¶19

2. Heard Mr. P.Rajkumar, Learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. M.Venkateswaran, Learned Government Counsel
appearing for the respondents, and perused the materials placed
on record.

¶20

3. One of the dealers, who was aggrieved by the said
common order had filed writ appeals in W.A. Nos. 2222, 2226,
2229 and 2242 of 2021 and by a common judgment dated 08.09.2021,
those appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded to the
Assessing Authority for fresh consideration. The operative
portion of that common order is extracted as follows:-

¶21

“14.The Writ Petitions were entertained in
the year 2014 and an order of interim stay was
granted, and the order of interim stay continued
to be in force till the disposal of the Writ
Petitions vide order dated 15.06.2020.

¶22

15.In the light of the recent decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra, one of
the exceptions, which has been drawn, for
permitting an aggrieved person to approach this
Court and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, despite availability of an
alternate remedy, is when there is violation of
principles of natural justice. We need not labour
much to investigate and ascertain as to whether
the Respondent had received the reply dated
06.12.2013, since the Assessing Officer in the
Counter-affidavit filed in the Writ Petitions has
accepted that the reply dated 06.12.2013 was
received. If such is the case, it goes without
saying that the Assessment orders dated
26.02.2014, 26.02.2014, 27.02.2014 and 27.02.2014

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

passed are in violation of the principles of
natural justice. That apart, in the objections
given by the Appellant dated 18.11.2013, apart
from pointing that the selling-dealer’s
registration was very much valid, and that they
have been filing e-returns, the Appellant sought
for 23 details/documents, which have been listed
above, and the Assessing Officer does not dispute
the fact that he has received the reply /
objections dated 18.11.2013. But without taking
note of the request made by the Appellant, the
second notice dated 03.12.2013 has been issued
once again alleging that the Appellant has
purchased from the Registration certificate
cancelled dealers and in addition, that the
Appellant has not filed any proof for physical
movement of goods the assessments were completed.

¶25

16.Had the Respondent furnished the
details / documents sought for by the Appellant
in their reply /objections dated 18.11.2013 or
given a reply to the said communication, with
regard to the Appellant entitlement to seek any
of or all of 23 details and documents, it would
have been a different matter?

¶26

17.However, the Respondent has virtually
ignored the reply dated 18.11.2013, wherein the
Appellant, apart from giving its preliminary
objections for the revision of assessment, has
also sought for certain details and documents.
That apart, there has been a specific request
made by the Appellant in the representation
18.11.2013 to grant an opportunity of personal
hearing. This has also been brushed aside, while
issuing the second notice dated 03.12.2013. That
apart, in the Assessment orders the Assessing
Officer has stated that the Appellant has not
furnished any reply to the second notice, whereas
it has been admitted in the Counter-affidavit
that the reply / objections dated 06.12.2013 has
been received.

¶27

18.Therefore, we are of the clear view that
there have been gross violation of principles of
natural justice, which would justify our stand
that the Appellant is entitled to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and
consequently, Writ Petitions are held to be
maintainable.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

19.For all the above reasons, we are
inclined to interfere the common order passed by
the Learned Writ Court and issue certain
directions, so that the assessments can be
completed, after complying with the principles of
natural justice.

¶30

20.Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed
and the orders passed in the Writ Petitions are
set aside and the assessment orders impugned in
the writ petitions are quashed and these matters
are remitted to the Assessing Officer and the
Assessing Officer is directed to issue notice to
the Appellant to appear in-person and during
their personal appearance, the Appellant is
directed to submit a further reply, clearly
specifying as to what are all documents and
details they would require and on such written
request, the Assessing Officer shall consider and
provide copies of the available details/
documents, or if the details and documents are
very voluminous, the representative of the
Appellant would be entitled to peruse the details
and documents in the office of the Respondent and
after furnishing/ perusal, within 15 days
therefrom, a fresh objection shall be given by
the Appellant to the proposals made in both the
notices dated 06.11.2013 and 03.12.2013 and on
receipt of the objections, the respondent shall
afford opportunity of personal hearing to the
authorised representative of the Appellant and
re-do the assessment in accordance with law.

¶31

21.On the above terms, these Writ Appeals
are allowed. No costs.”

¶32

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
is a slight factual distinction between the cases of the
dealers, which was the subject matter of the above referred
judgment in the writ appeals.

¶33

5. In our view, the writ petitions were dismissed solely
on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and the
factual position has not gone into. We have examined the matters
and we found that the writ petitions were maintainable and we
have directed the Assessing Authorities to re-do the assessment.
Therefore, we make it clear that it is open to the appellant-
dealers to raise all contentions before the Assessing Officer.

¶34

6. In the light of the above, the writ appeals are
allowed and the orders passed in the Writ Petitions are set

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

aside and the assessment orders impugned in the writ petitions
are quashed and these matters are remitted to the Assessing
Officer and the Assessing Officer is directed to issue notice to
the Appellant to appear in-person and during their personal
appearance, the Appellant is directed to submit a further reply,
clearly specifying as to what are all documents and details they
would require and on such written request, the Assessing Officer
shall consider and provide copies of the available details/
documents, or if the details and documents are very voluminous,
the representative of the Appellant would be entitled to peruse
the details and documents in the office of the Respondent and
after furnishing/ perusal, within 15 days therefrom, a fresh
objection shall be given by the Appellant and on receipt of the
objections, the respondent shall afford opportunity of personal
hearing to the authorised representative of the Appellant and
re-do the assessment in accordance with law. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

Sp/Maya

¶42

To

¶43

1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Peddunnaickenpet Assessment Circle, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶44

2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement (North), PAPJM Building, Chennai – 600 006.

¶45

+1cc to Mr.P.Rajkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.50705

¶46

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(Taxes), High Court,
Madras-104, S.R.No.51040

¶47

W.A. Nos. 2404, 2407, 2427 and 2433 of 2021

¶48

PPA(CO)

¶49

RLP(26/10/2021)

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. Kiran Distributors v. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kiran Distributors v. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S.Iti Holding and Investments

The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs M/S.Agni Steels Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Saravana Stocks Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

G.Rajam Chetty and Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Customs, Vs Shri.Vikram Jain @Veerchand Jain

Navkar Electronics Vs Income Tax Officer